mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Reducing Spatial Labeling Redundancy for Semi-supervised Crowd Counting

arXiv 2108.02970 ↗First posted 6 Aug 2021cs.CVcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Labeling is onerous for crowd counting as it should annotate each individual in crowd images. Recently, several methods have been proposed for semi-supervised crowd counting to reduce the labeling efforts. Given a limited labeling budget, they typically select a few crowd images and densely label all individuals in each of them. Despite the promising results, we argue the None-or-All labeling strategy is suboptimal as the densely labeled individuals in each crowd image usually appear similar while the massive unlabeled crowd images may contain entirely diverse individuals. To this end, we propose to break the labeling chain of previous methods and make the first attempt to reduce spatial labeling redundancy for semi-supervised crowd counting. First, instead of annotating all the regions in each crowd image, we propose to annotate the representative ones only. We analyze the region representativeness from both vertical and horizontal directions, and formulate them as cluster centers of Gaussian Mixture Models. Additionally, to leverage the rich unlabeled regions, we exploit the similarities among individuals in each crowd image to directly supervise the unlabeled regions via feature propagation instead of the error-prone label propagation employed in the previous methods. In this way, we can transfer the original spatial labeling redundancy caused by individual similarities to effective supervision signals on the unlabeled regions. Extensive experiments on the widely-used benchmarks demonstrate that our method can outperform previous best approaches by a large margin.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 24 of its 49 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 6 Aug 2021.

Builds on

24 of 49 references.

References · 24

  1. 2014Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimizationcited by 37,240
  2. 2019Unsupervised Data Augmentation for Consistency Trainingcited by 1,060
  3. 2018CSRNet: Dilated Convolutional Neural Networks for Understanding the Highly Congested Scenescited by 267
  4. 2018Composition Loss for Counting, Density Map Estimation and Localization in Dense Crowdscited by 186
  5. 2019Bayesian Loss for Crowd Count Estimation with Point Supervisioncited by 162
  6. 2018Context-Aware Crowd Countingcited by 150
  7. 2017Switching Convolutional Neural Network for Crowd Countingcited by 93
  8. 2018Leveraging Unlabeled Data for Crowd Counting by Learning to Rankcited by 57
  9. 2019Crowd Counting and Density Estimation by Trellis Encoder-Decoder Networkcited by 56
  10. 2019Perspective-Guided Convolution Networks for Crowd Countingcited by 54
  11. 2019Exploiting Unlabeled Data in CNNs by Self-supervised Learning to Rankcited by 52
  12. 2018Revisiting Perspective Information for Efficient Crowd Countingcited by 49
12 more
  1. 2018ADCrowdNet: An Attention-injective Deformable Convolutional Network for Crowd Understandingcited by 45
  2. 2020CNN-based Density Estimation and Crowd Counting: A Surveycited by 43
  3. 2020Semi-Supervised Crowd Counting via Self-Training on Surrogate Taskscited by 35
  4. 2019HA-CCN: Hierarchical Attention-based Crowd Counting Networkcited by 32
  5. 2020Weighing Counts: Sequential Crowd Counting by Reinforcement Learningcited by 30
  6. 2020Shallow Feature Based Dense Attention Network for Crowd Countingcited by 28
  7. 2020Learning to Count in the Crowd from Limited Labeled Datacited by 27
  8. 2015Crowded Scene Analysis: A Surveycited by 21
  9. 2020Hybrid Graph Neural Networks for Crowd Countingcited by 21
  10. 2019Crowd Counting with Decomposed Uncertaintycited by 20
  11. 2020Active Crowd Counting with Limited Supervisioncited by 20
  12. 2020Uncertainty Estimation and Sample Selection for Crowd Countingcited by 11

Built on by

Not cited yet.